Ospina Garrido v. Miami-Dade Police Department
170 So. 3d 810
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ospina, a Colombian businessman, arrived in Miami carrying €100,000 (~$129,000) and declared the funds to U.S. Customs as business proceeds to buy cell phones for resale.
- MDPD seized the currency after consulting the U.S. Attorney (who declined prosecution) and filed a verified forfeiture complaint alleging connection to bank fraud and drug/money‑laundering based largely on the denomination of the €500 notes and a news article.
- At the adversarial preliminary (probable‑cause) hearing, the court excluded Ospina’s documentary evidence showing legitimate business use; the court found probable cause and the funds remained seized for over eight months.
- Ospina filed a motion to dismiss and later a motion for summary judgment; summary judgment was granted in his favor and the funds were returned; he obtained limited damages.
- Ospina sought attorneys’ fees under Fla. Stat. § 932.704(10) (forfeiture statute) and § 57.105 (sanctions for baseless claims); the trial court denied fees, reasoning the preliminary probable‑cause finding and summary judgment alone did not establish entitlement under § 57.105.
- The appellate court held MDPD acted without good faith and pursued a claim unsupported by material facts and law, reversed the denial of fees, and remanded for the trial court to award attorneys’ fees under either § 932.704(10) or § 57.105.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant is entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 932.704(10) after prevailing at stage two | Ospina: MDPD lacked good faith and grossly abused discretion; fees authorized when seizing agency acted in bad faith | MDPD: Preliminary probable cause finding and investigation justified seizure; no bad faith | Court: Trial record shows lack of good faith; § 932.704(10) entitlement supported — remand to award fees |
| Whether claimant is entitled to fees under § 57.105 for baseless litigation | Ospina: Forfeiture claim lacked factual and legal support; fees mandatory where claim unsupported | MDPD: Summary judgment ≠ automatic basis for § 57.105; preliminary probable cause defeats frivolousness claim | Court: § 57.105 does not require finding of frivolousness; record shows claim lacked factual/legal basis — remand to award fees |
| Admissibility of claimant’s evidence at adversarial preliminary hearing | Ospina: Statute and precedent permit presenting evidence rebutting probable cause | MDPD: Claimant’s evidence improperly goes to ultimate issue and is not for probable‑cause stage | Court: Evidence was admissible; exclusion unfairly hindered Ospina and contributed to improper probable‑cause finding |
| Whether preliminary probable‑cause finding precludes fee awards after stage‑two victory | MDPD: Finding of probable cause at stage one bars fee sanctions at stage two | Ospina: Stage‑one probable cause does not preclude fee awards when agency acted in bad faith or claim lacked merit | Court: Stage‑one finding does not preclude fee awards under either statute; fees appropriate on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. City of West Palm Beach, 149 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (admissibility of claimant’s evidence at adversarial preliminary hearing and due process concerns)
- Cobb v. Langworthy, 909 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (affirming fee award to prevailing property owner after stage‑two resolution despite stage‑one probable cause)
- In re Forfeiture of: 1997 Jeep Cherokee, 898 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (awarding § 57.105 fees despite preliminary probable‑cause finding)
- In re Forfeiture of One Hundred Seventy‑One Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($171,900) in U.S. Currency, 711 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (probable‑cause standard and agency burden to justify continued seizure)
- Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (§ 57.105 requires dismissal of unsupported claims or risk mandatory fees)
- Martin Cnty. Conservation Alliance v. Martin Cnty., 73 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (§ 57.105 does not require finding of frivolousness; fees proper when claim lacked factual or legal basis)
- Long v. AvMed, Inc., 14 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (fees appropriate for claims without factual or legal merit under § 57.105)
- Wendy’s of N.E. Fla., Inc. v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (summary judgment alone does not automatically entitle moving party to § 57.105 fees)
- Smith v. Gore, 933 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (statutory mandate that courts shall assess fees for baseless claims under § 57.105)